Denver under 7.5 (-150) I like overPittsburgh under 8.5 (-110) I like over (9)SF over 9 (-110) Browns over 5.5 (-115) (over is a really nice bet IMO)Buffalo under 5.5 (-140)Arizona under 7.5 (+115) (like the over)Seattle under 7.5 (-170) (like the over but barely 8)

"All comments welcomed........."

I think the obvious is that if you think SF will win 10+ games, and both Seattle and AZ will win 7 or less....what the heck do you expect from St Louis?

And if it is to be worse than AZ and Seattle (which it should), what was the last division to only have one team with more than 8 wins?

Well, of course, this is all conjecture, but let me see. I hated the way Denver ended the season last year and I have them as the worst team in their division....both KC and Oakland, I think, will end up with better records. Their QB situation relies on Orton staying healthy, and he is no Peyton Manning. The loss of Dumerville is huge.

Pittsburgh, I think, clearly has fallen behind Baltimore and Cinci, and I think will be lucky to beat either of those teams in either game. I expect Cleveland to beat them once. I put Pittsburgh, at best, 8-8, and probably worse, and may well finish behind the Browns, and neither team will approach Cinci or Baltimore.

I cannot see how you have Seattle winning 8 games..they only won 5 last year, have a new coach (with no history of NFL success) and Hasselbeck is a year older and clearly a deteriorating product. They will have trouble staying ahead of St. Louis.

Arizona has lost their QB and Boldin..and who knows if Fitzgerald really will start the season healthy. I am not sold on Leinart at all, and I have them winning 7 or 6, so getting the under with + was a bargain, in my opinion.

And yes, I think this division will be, by far, the most woeful in football...even the AFC west will be better and that is saying something.

I tend to try to stay away from overs as much as possible, since one never knows about injuries during the season, but the Browns surely should win at least 6 and maybe 7, and I think SF is, by far, the class of the division.

Denver under 7.5 (-150) I like overPittsburgh under 8.5 (-110) I like over (9)SF over 9 (-110) Browns over 5.5 (-115) (over is a really nice bet IMO)Buffalo under 5.5 (-140)Arizona under 7.5 (+115) (like the over)Seattle under 7.5 (-170) (like the over but barely 8)

"All comments welcomed........."

I think the obvious is that if you think SF will win 10+ games, and both Seattle and AZ will win 7 or less....what the heck do you expect from St Louis?

And if it is to be worse than AZ and Seattle (which it should), what was the last division to only have one team with more than 8 wins?

Just got around to checking historical standings. Last year, both the NFC and AFC west only had one team with more than 8 wins. In 2008, no team in the AFC West had more than 8 wins, and only one in the NFC west did. In 2007, the AFC east, AFC west, NFC north, NFC south, and NFC west all had only one team with more than 8 wins.

Elvis' injury not changing that number is proof positive that there is only 1 position that moves season totals. Huge problem for Denver there. HAS to be under there now, especially if you're on the fence.

The best pick left the barn early with Hotlanta opening up at 8, with sharp $ steaming it quickly to 9.

I'll say this about season totals, if you are thinking the opposite of the direction a line is steaming, wait it out at this point. Early money follows the late money, they RARELY oscillate.

LP, what payout would you deem not worth the risk? For example, one of the bets I'm considering is the over on Oakland, but the payout is only -180. That's reason enough to push me away, but would you say the same about a -160 or -140?

CAVSTRIBEBROWNSin07! wrote:LP, what payout would you deem not worth the risk? For example, one of the bets I'm considering is the over on Oakland, but the payout is only -180. That's reason enough to push me away, but would you say the same about a -160 or -140?

Can I ask what the other side of the Raiders pays?

In the age of the internet, that's one of the huge problems, that is, in these future bets they hammer you on vig. Vig so high a sharp wouldn't bet there if he loved the play.

This, by the way, is the reason you should never wager a "blank to 1" to win the Super bowl. Because in a bet like that with only one side, and 98% of the players not even understanding how to calculate the vig on that bet, they oughta be wearin' a mask.

There's reason the sharps reside, or have runners in Vegas, instead of staying in their home states and getting down on line. It ain't the betting limits, it's the fact a guy sittin' in Vegas can go 56% for the year and jet ski in the offseason, while the internet gambler hitting 56% is lucky to be above water.

Ended up doing the ones in bold, plus SF -8.5 (at +175!), Carolina -7, Buffalo -5, and NO -10.5. TB was the only one I was really off on. If the Browns dont shit the bed, that's an insane success, but as it is, I still finished 7-5 and up about 25%.

Lead, I'm first seeing your response now. Those are very valid points, but I consider myself to be at the point (particularly lately) that I'm not just a random square off the street. My question was more if you have a specific vig in mind that is too high for you, or is it a case by case basis.